MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3025793877 · doi:10.1097/coc.0000000000000706

ACR–ASTRO Practice Parameter for the Performance of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy

2020· article· en· W3025793877 on OpenAlexaff
Samuel T. Chao, Luqman Dad, Laura A. Dawson, Neil Desai, Matthew Pacella, Ramesh Rengan, Ying Xiao, Kamil M. Yenice, Seth A. Rosenthal, Alan C. Hartford

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicManagement of metastatic bone disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMedical physicsRadiation oncologyTimelineDocumentationRadiosurgeryWorkflowStereotactic radiation therapyMedical physicistRadiation therapyNuclear medicineRadiologyDatabaseComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM/OBJECTIVES/BACKGROUND: To standardize the practice of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), the American College of Radiology (ACR) and the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) cooperatively developed the practice parameter for SBRT. SBRT is a treatment technique that delivers radiation dose to a well-defined extracranial target in 5 fractions or less and usually employs a higher dose per fraction than used in conventional radiation. METHODS: The ACR-ASTRO Practice Parameter for the Performance of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy was revised according to the process described on the ACR website ("The Process for Developing ACR Practice Parameters and Technical Standards," www.acr.org/ClinicalResources/Practice-Parameters-and-Technical-Standards) by the Committee on Practice Parameters of the ACR Commission on Radiation Oncology in collaboration with the ASTRO. Both societies then reviewed and approved the document. RESULTS: Given the complexities of SBRT, a separate document was created to develop a technical standard for the medical physics of SBRT (ACR-AAPM Technical Standard for Medical Physics Performance Monitoring of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy). Workflow, qualifications and responsibilities of personnel, specifications, documentation, quality control/safety/improvement, simulation/treatment, and follow-up were addressed in this practice parameter. CONCLUSIONS: This practice parameter assists practitioners in providing safe and appropriate SBRT treatment and care for patients when clinically indicated. As technologies and techniques continue to evolve, this document will be reviewed, revised and renewed accordingly to a 5 year or sooner timeline specified by the ACR.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.127
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.127
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.021

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.113
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.359 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations51
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Clinical OncologySame topicManagement of metastatic bone diseaseFrench-language works237,207